Seven ways American women have made the government their husbands. Sucks when he takes time off, doesn’t it, ladies?

It really comes as no surprise that the moment the government went into shutdown, feminists starting moaning about how it was really all about meeeeeeeee … that big mean House thinks grown-ups should maybe be responsible for their own lives and that is just no fair.

It comes as even less of a surprise that our favorite little rationalist apologist Amanda Marcotte would step onto her soapbox to preach the injustice against women loud and clear. She’s not wrong: the government shutdown really does hit women harder than men.

Number One: The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). Nice how only women are seen as deserving of special supplements, isn’t it? Guess all you Daddies can get your own fucking supper.

How many children depend on the government to provide basic nutrition for them?

Who wants to be bet the vast majority of babies who need Big Government to put food in their bellies are babies with no Daddy? Just that strong, independent, courageous single mother to count on. Who can’t even feed her own children. Yep – the very definition of reliable.

Number Two: Less college financial aid, and since more women go to college than men, that means more women are affected. And what will the terrible impact on our society be when all these women fail to graduate from college loaded down with debts they couldn’t reasonably afford in the first place?

Our engineering corps will collapse!

Atmospheric and climate scientists will disappear!

We’ll face a dramatic shortage of computer programmers and analysts!

Workers skilled in financial transactions and operations management will vanish!

Oh, oops. Nope. That won’t happen. Our supply of baristas and secretaries might dry up though. Whatever will we do?

Number Three: Head Start programs are not essential services, so out they go. And who uses Head Start? Low income families. What is the best predictor of whether your family be scraping along in poverty?

It’s the single mommies again!

Overall, only 7 percent of those living in households headed by a married individual were poor, whereas households with an unmarried head and children present — 83 percent of which were headed by women — had poverty rates of 40.3 percent.

No food, no one to look after the children, no money for heat. Yeah, single motherhood is such a sensible thing to do. Let’s celebrate all those wise women who need men like a fish needs a bicycle water.

Number Five: TANF – Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. And who are those needy families? The chorus is getting deafening here, isn’t it?

Single mothers bring children into this world that they cannot feed, cannot educate, cannot keep warm, cannot provide basic essentials for, and we are still acting like this is a perfectly normal and acceptable state of affairs.

50% of babies born to women without the slightest ability to care for them?

*shrug*

It’s ridiculous that we are permitting these women to condemn their own children to poverty and learned helplessness and blighted opportunities.

Amanda’s last two points are kind of stupid: restricted access to flu shots will affect women more because they tend to have less important (if any) work to do and are usually the ones to take the day off, and the Panda-cam will be down. Love of baby pandas is apparently a thing that women experience disproportionately, or it indicates just how vital women’s jobs are when they can while away hours watching cute little bears snuggle and tussle.

The solution is NOT to take money out of the hands of families who can and do care for their own children and redistribute it to the irresponsible. What incentive do they have to be more responsible? I personally think our entire welfare state needs to be overhauled to provide for children, and only children, who obviously did not personally select some unmarried idiot to be their caregiver.

Children should be fed, clothed and cared for at school, creating the double benefit of making sure that our social resources go to the children and providing an incentive for those children to get to school every day. Children deserve our unconditional compassion and support.

Adults? I don’t think so.

And obviously, I am not talking about genuinely disabled adults who CANNOT support themselves, whether that is a result of physical or mental handicaps. No one chooses to be schizophrenic or to come back from a war with life-altering PTSD or be born with cystic fibrosis.

But adults who just make a series of crappy fucking decisions and then expect to stick us with the costs of those choices? No way. Make better choices.

And who am I kidding? Adults who make a series of crappy choices? As Amanda quite rightly points out, it’s mostly WOMEN who make these shitty decisions that are costing the rest of us a small fortune. The very best way to encourage women to make better choices is to spell out the consequences very clearly.

Which is just what the government shut down is doing.

Don’t kid yourselves, single mothers. You are NOT surviving on your own grit and efforts. You may not have a man to count on in your house, but you have ALL men to count on in the form of your Big Daddy in the White House.

Sponsored links

re: single mommies and the welfare programs. a few different friends who provide services/products to these families (2 property owners, a daycare owner, 2 headstart workers and a social worker) all have told me at various times during various conversations that the people they see using these services do in fact have a man in the house – they just lie about it to receive the benefits. it’s anecdotal but i thought it might interest you.

actually the article you quote lends some credence to that saying that “almost all the rise in nonmarital births is with couples living together” and that “Others noted that if they married, their official household income would rise, which could cost them government benefits like food stamps and child care. “

James Thrice

Most of those women have live-in boyfriends, not their babydaddy. The boyfriend usually has no intention of making this a fulltime thing. He’s just there for the (very) easy lovin’ and then he’ll split. And who can blame him? The woman isn’t a winner herself, and she’s trying to trap the man into paying for her kid. She’s hoping the two bad decisions will cancel out one another.

cassdawn

how do you know that? i’m looking for something tangible. you may be right or wrong – i’ve no dog in the fight. just curious.

the article referenced in the posting points to cohabitation by the parents and a mutual decision based on finances. i know a number of couples cohabiting with their children but none that are on assistance; or at least not that i know of.

off the top i can only think of one family i’ve known personally that actually received assistance – 20 years ago. they were a couple, had a child together and lied about the father’s involvement and living arrangements in order to receive assistance so that the father could finish college. they eventually got married, he joined the service and they are still together.

i know another – a friend’s brother and his gf – so, admittedly second hand but they are not married but have been together for 5 years or so and the two kids are theirs mutually. she receives a bunch of assistance and is in many ways the stereotype of those who receive assistance -thinking it is owed her, using the money for all the wrong shit etc. but they are definitely together.

so put that together with the stories i’ve heard from property owners, directors etc. and i’m curious whether my experience is part of a larger trend or an anomaly

feeriker

“Others noted that if they married, their official household income would rise, which could cost them government benefits like food stamps and child care. “

Not to mention tax penalties (I never get enough of rubbing that inconvenient little factoid into the faces of American right-wingers who spew the “Conservatives are all about family values” nonsense. If that was true, why didn’t the tax code change when said “Conservatives” controlled both houses of Congress AND the White House?).

Macho79

It did – remember the Bush Tax Cuts? That the dems have been trying to repeal ever since 2008. Libs have such short memories.

feeriker

If by that you’re implying that I’m a liberal, you’re dead wrong. Libertarian, yes, but not liberal. You’re also dead wrong in implying that the Bush tax cuts even made a pretense of doing anything whatsoever to get rid of the marriage penalty that has been imbedded in the tax code for decades.

Faux “conservatives” have short memories too, not to mention the fact that they’re completely clueless.

The problem lies in the fact that a single woman gets the same level of help (well maybe a bit more) as a single man when it comes to government aid.

Add a baby though and that aid is exponentially higher, because the good of the child comes first. Welfare, housing allowance, food stamps, plus all the programs outlined above. There is a reason men are 80%+ of the homeless population. They can’t pop out a kid and get free housing.

All explained away by the needs of the child come first. Same reason a court will enforce a child support payment on a man who isn’t even the father.

I would have said that they (American women) have made the government into their fathers rather than husbands.
You’re supposed to give something back to your husband (sex, children, love), whereas you’re not expected to give anything back to your father other than more demands. Then, if daddy doesn’t give you what you want, you say it’s not fair (sexism) and accuse him of not really loving you (misogyny) until he gives in.

feeriker

I would have said that they (American women) have made the government into their fathers rather than husbands.

They’ve made it into both. It’s an especially grotesque relationship that’s a form of economic incest. Snowflake Babymomma throws herself on Daddy Gubbimint’s mercy by acting like a helpless victim who needs an allowance in order to survive, then bribes him into becoming Husband Gubbimint, a surrogate father to her bastard children by promising to empower him to continue stealing on her behalf (i.e., by voting for him to continue empowering himself by robbing from the productive sector of society).

RS

My sister-in-law learned very quickly that children are an excellent way to get financial aid from my in-laws. Slightly different than relying on the government but in the end it’s the same result– she has had no disincentive to being a single mother. She has three kids now (and two divorces under her belt) and grandma is all but living with her but we get to hear all the time about how “independent” she is. ((eye roll))

I’ve been watching the rationalization hamster at work at a micro level for a while- now we’re seeing it in action on a macro scale. It isn’t pretty either way.

If my husband were to have fathered many children with different mothers he wouldn’t be lauded as “independent” or “brave.” But somehow the narrative has gotten twisted to give those very attributes to stupid women. Unbelievable.

Nope. The only change will be that employers will start hiring baristas and secretaries (to the extent that anyone needs secretaries anymore) without degrees – something they never needed in the first place and that they have in large number only because of the glut of people (mostly women) holding degrees that have all the economic value of the Weimar-era Deutschmark – and this due to government distortion of/interference in the education market.

IOW, the job market will eventually correct itself – as markets always do.

I personally think our entire welfare state needs to be overhauled to provide for children, and only children, who obviously did not personally select some unmarried idiot to be their caregiver.

Children should be fed, clothed and cared for at school, creating the double benefit of making sure that our social resources go to the children and providing an incentive for those children to get to school every day. Children deserve our unconditional compassion and support.

Adults? I don’t think so.

One thing that would go a long way toward making this happen is for adoption laws in the North America to be loosened up to the point where it’s no longer impossible for married couples to adopt children actually born in North America. So how would this relate to JB’s quote above?

Well, when an irresponsible babymomma pops out a crotch fruit, she is served notice that Uncle Sap (or his children called state and local governments) ain’t gonna be Sugar Daddy to her and her little bastard offspring. She had better damned well be independently wealthy (or come from a family that is), be a career woman with a six-figure annual salary who can pay for her own childcare, be the recipient of some form of promised private charity that she can fall back on, or be a magician who can conjure up out of thin air money, a house, food, and all the other things that she and baby bastard offspring need.

If she’s not one of the above four things, then let there by a childless couple waiting in the wings to snatch up and adopt the unfortunate little crotch fruit. Otherwise, irresponsible babymomma is not only going to not be able to care for her hapless progeny, but will probably harm the poor little thing due to the inevitable neglect (or more likely, abuse) that will result from the poverty in which she will find herself forced to live, seeing as she’s incapable of caring for herself, let alone herself and a child.

Oh, and let any act of neglect or abuse against her child(ren) result in a lengthy (or life-long, depending on the severity of the neglect or abuse) sentence at hard labor.

Methinks this plan, if implemented, would see the bastard birth rate drop to nearly zero percent of all totals.

James Thrice

As a former foster child I can tell you that it’s the conflicting laws and bureaucracy that runs potential adoptive parents off. It’s sad that they can put an adoption on hold to see if the child’s great aunt (who he’s never met) wants him first.

Fred

Shit, 53% of babies probably will not grow up to be productive people. How many will grow up to be violent brutes? Single moms do a bang up job of raising nice young men.

What a charming deal for responsible people. Support the little bastards until they grow into adult good-for-nothings, then repeat.

SK

Even worse, support the little bastards until they grow into thugs, then brutallize you in a street corner and run off with your watch and wallet (and all the money you spent to support them in the first place).

M

Firearms…. Think firearms

earl

Yup…the little spawn didn’t choose how they came into the world. Orphanages would be a better place for these kids to go than single mothers.

That single mother did have the choice to keep her legs closed. She should be the one without heat, food, and any other creature comforts…including her little paychecks…I mean children.

SK

There’s something very wrong in a country were a poor woman can think (and be right) that bringing a child into her poor piss life is actually a sound financial decision.

Modern Drummer

This ‘shutdown’ doesn’t nearly resemble a real shutdown that could occur when the fed can no longer mask this country’s financial problem by printing money. The dependent class will be the first to be discarded and blamed by the government when the financial crisis hits the USA.

Jax

WIC actually isn’t that bad of a program. They only provide assistance to pregnant and breastfeeding mothers, will provide assistance to fathers (assuming their kids otherwise qualify) and only help families with kids under five (or so)

And, unlike a lot of foodstamp programs they are *extremely* specific about what people could buy, to the point where the machines I used as a cashier wouldn’t even let me scan non-approved products. There’s no way to buy cake or lobster or cigarettes with WIC.

Wow- that is way more liberal than the system we have in most of the southern states- you go to a warehouse and take what they give you. which is usually milk, juice, cheese, cereal, peanut butter, and formula. It would be nice if EBT was this regulated- there is NO reason these cards should be excepted at gas stations or restaurants– there is nothing of nutritional value to be found at a convenience store and dining out is financially irresponsible considering grocery stores have RTE items for a fraction of restaurant prices.

The Outsider

Although it’s true that the children of single mothers are much more sympathetic than the single mothers themselves, I still don’t see how this is my problem. Good Christian compassion means I don’t want to see the little wretches starving in the streets, but short of that… I’m mostly interested in directing my resources to my own kids.

This is horribly unfair to children of single mothers. Life will be unfair to them at every turn, in fact. Still, it’s very difficult to mitigate the effects of a problem (e.g., a class of kids who get a raw deal) without making the cause worse (i.e., single mothers). The Law of Unintended Consequences is pitiless.

Single motherhood is the 800-lb silverback gorilla in the room nobody wants to acknowledge. The public pays for half the kids in this country they don’t have, the single moms fuck up the kids, especially boys growing up without dads, and then become social swine and the next prison population…which, again, we all pay for.

Feminism is the calculus designed to make decent, law-abiding citizens pay through the nose for their worst enemies. Okay. Got it. You want poverty and massive social illnesses? Vote Team Vagina.

It never ceases to amaze me how publicly scitso women have proven themselves to be. It was better when the men led the world to believe they were sane. Search, “Why do Women Make Such Public Fools Of Themselves”, for more.

It never ceases to amaze me how publicly scitso women prove themselves to be. It was better when the men led the world to believe they were sane. Search, “Why Do Women Make Such Public Fools of Themselves”, for more.